Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.

from ifixpcs... solution to the west lothian question you are anticipating scottish representation should remain in westminster

English MPs have the numbers to pass law to stop Scottish MPs voting on non-Scottish matters in Westminster, so why don't they? Why don't you raise the issue with your own MP about why this is so, he or she is in a better position to do something about it.

Not at all am I suggesting that any MPs representing Scottish constituancies remain in Westminster, on the contrary I am saying there will be no Scottish MPs in Westminster other than any MPs elected that might have a Scottish heritage, as many do now, but are still elected to represent constituancies within England, NI or Wales and not any where north of the border. My apologies if my post was not clear on that matter.

A link to your data source would have been useful so that I and others might determine the root source. But still, I have posted accurate offficial information from the UK government and other government websites that has shown beyond any doubt that the economic case for Scottish independance is well founded and based on economic realities. This is verified, to my mind at least, by the absolute lack of any pro unionist supporter or politician making and substantiating any claims to the contrary.

The case for Scottish independance is however not just about economics it is also about the right to self detrmination and self governance for a discrete body of people. Let us imagine for a moment that this referendum was not about Scottish independance but was about the UKs membership of the European Union so longed for south of the border. Just look at some of the claims made against the Scottish case for independance and imagine that those arguments were being put forward by the pro Europeans......

a) That the rest of the EU should get a vote and/or a final say in the decision. Now if the UK voted lets say 52% v 48% in favour of leaving the EU but then the EU turned around and said well all the votes of the people who chose not to vote have to be added to the no vote count, effectively reversing the true outcome, or that the rest of the nations in the EU had to have a vote to see if the UK could be allowed to leave. How many of those in here saying that about Scotland do you honestly believe would be posting in here saying yes that's fair and the EU is right?

b) Imagine too if the UK chose to leave the EU but the EU said but they are still going to keep some of the fishing or other shared resources that other EU countries currently enjoy especially if they did it by illegally redefining the UK's maritime boundaries so that some of our fishing or mineral wealth then became EU property. Would such a move by the EU be well recieved here in the UK by the pro unionist supporters?.

c) What might you imagine would be the reaction in the UK were a referendum to leave the EU be called and senior politicians from other EU countries started to call the UK a parasite nation, to make threats of un-necessary economic sanctions and threatening to erect economic barriers to trade, or that any UK citizens that chose to visit an EU country after leaving would be subjected to restrictions on their free movements that are not applied to member states that remain in the EU. Would any of those conditions or actions be seen as acceptable?.

d) Would it acceptable for the other EU states to bring their nuclear wastes and dangerous weapons into the UK after the UK left the EU, to store them under our ground knowing that for the next 30,000 years that waste would present a hazzard of immeasurable proportions to the UK population through seepage into the water systems and soil of the UK and to expose the UK public the very real danger of nuclear explosions from the extreemly unsafe storage of those weapons and wastes?.

e) Imagine that the economy in the UK was booming, that we had a budget surplus each year and exports were growing at over 13%, that green energy investments meant that the UK would be able to provide almost 1/4 of the energy needs for the rest of the EU and be energy independant within a few short years , that the EU as whole had zero or negative growth, exports were rising by less than 1% and that the political, tax raising powers, legal primacy and majority decision making was done in Brussels, not London, as many claim is the case right now. Would it be right for the EU to absorb those good UK results into their own figures and deny that information to the peoples of the UK through dishonest accounting methods or to say that the UK should take on board large swathes of the debts and liabilities of the whole of the EU and Eurozone even though we did not agree to those decisions or have any say in the actions they have taken?

I will assume that yours, and everyone elses answer to those questions would be resounding negative and yet, if you take those questions and replace every instance of the word UK with the word Scotland and every instance of the word EU with the UK then those answers somehow become YES. How can that be right and how can that be fair?

You say that we are better off as a whole than as seperate parts. If that is true then the same would apply by extention to the UK and it's membership of the EU.

I would be very interested if you could outline any or all of those mutual benefits that are jointly shared between the UK as a whole and Scotland. It is all one way traffic from what I and many others can see and if you do really believe that the English would be the greater beneficiaries then please take a few moments to outline just how. It costs each Scottish person over £2,300 to be members of the UK and each UK person only £250 to be members of the EU. How is that that fair on Scotland or the Scottish people or to anyone's advantage other than the English?...........

I would be very interested if you could outline any or all of those mutual benefits that are jointly shared between the UK as a whole and Scotland.

Even with both countries (assuming full independence for Scotland) having free at the point of use health service and benefitting from reciprocacy, there would be an extra level of beauracracy at Government level involved in claiming back monies spent on treatment from the other Government with regard Scots being treated in England and vice versa, which adds one more potential way of losing money that you would not get as it is now.

And with total independence what would happen to current cross-border arrangements for treatment by specialists, for example say someone in Wick with a burns injury that is clinically decided would be best to be treated at QVH in East Grinstead, way dan sarf in the land of the South Saxons? At the moment it can be a simple judgement based on clinical needs, and a simple arrangement between trusts. With independent countries it would have to be formally done at a Government level.

What happens to justice arrangements? An offender caught in Scotland for an offence in England is simply handed over to the force covering where the offence has taken place, (no different to the Met Police handing someone over to Surrey Police for etc.) With independent countries that would require an extradition hearing at court before that can be considered.

How about free movement and spending between England and Scotland, and for example payment by credit cards? With independence does that now entitle the Credit Card company to charge extra because of being in a foreign country? What about ATM charges, if England and Scotland were two foreign countries?

What happens with driving licences? What happens with domestic UK motor insurances? What happens to household content insurance that current cover you for items lost in the UK?

Graffiti Poet, I could turn the question around and ask if you think that only the formation of independent country is the only way that the Scots can achieve self-governance, or can it be achieved through a devolved entity?

I will assume that yours, and everyone elses answer to those questions would be resounding negative and yet, if you take those questions and replace every instance of the word UK with the word Scotland and every instance of the word EU with the UK then those answers somehow become YES. How can that be right and how can that be fair?

Of course it would. Why, because, as usual you are posting so much it takes too long to unravel what you are talking about. But in all of your instances to which the above paragraph refer it is very easy to disagree with you. You are not comparing like with like. Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom for 3oo years, in effect a single entity, even though it retained some of it's own administration and traditions. We are, in effect, part and parcel of the same country a monarchy with a common parliament. I don't wish to inflame Scots or Welsh with that remark, although they are "countries" they are really part of the United Kingdom. And they were part of the UK for 280 of those 300 years when they needed us and we needed them. And they have developed as we have developed.

Because you now feel that they don't need the rest of the UK anymore is not an argument to go.

That is not the case with the UK and the EU. We are part of the EU because we joined a union for common trade some 40 years ago. That has developed and we now accept some of the laws of the European Union in the UK. But we are not governed by them, we are not part of a single country, we are still a member of a European Union for trade purposes. In fact we have been resisting making that final step into a United States of Europe. If that happened then ask your questions in 300 years after we have developed ourselves as a single entity, and I might agree with you. Till then you do need to keep your arguments on a like for like basis.

And if we had a referendum to leave, your prediction of the criticism and threats would certainly come our way. And the other heads of EU countries would be laughed at to call us a parasite nation because we are a net contributor to the EU.

But if we found vast energy supplies under Yorkshire, would you then make the case for Yorkshire to leave the UK. I have said previously everthing you have said could apply to London. Would you ever make the case for London to leave the UK. No, you seem to have a gripe against the UK government and you are expressing your disatisfaction in this manner.

The reason so many of us are against the break up of the UK is that we know we will be stronger as a whole. We do not want to see a member of our family come into some money and then refuse to talk to us in case we want some. And that is the case you are making for them. For whatever reason, I do not know.

It costs each Scottish person over £2,300 to be members of the UK and each UK person only £250 to be members of the EU. How is that that fair on Scotland or the Scottish people or to anyone's advantage other than the English?...........

You keep posting this sort of figures that just do not have any justification in reality. You are quite wrong, as is anyone else publishing these figures, to suggest that it costs the Scots anything at all to belong to the UK. What you are doing is making the case that it is Scottish oil; it isn't, it is the territorial waters and continental shelf of the UK at the moment. And the revenues from that are collected by the Treasury to administer the UK as a whole. And the Scots, at the moment, receive sufficient from the funds of the UK to enjoy benefits not available in England.

In addition a Scottish bank was recently bailed out with billions of cash from the Treasury. That was because it was a UK bank, not because the English parliament was feeling generous on that day and wanted to help a Scottish bank.

In addition a Scottish bank was recently bailed out with billions of cash from the Treasury. That was because it was a UK bank, not because the English parliament was feeling generous on that day and wanted to help a Scottish bank.

I wonder if the delay in holding the referendum is so that an independent Scotland wouldn't be liable for that debt?

The reason so many of us are against the break up of the UK is that we know we will be stronger as a whole.

I'm waiting to see what exactly the benefits are before making my mind up on the issue.

At least if Scotland went, our flag would be whiter.

We are part of the EU because we joined a union for common trade some 40 years ago. That has developed and we now accept some of the laws of the European Union in the UK. But we are not governed by them, we are not part of a single country, we are still a member of a European Union for trade purposes.

Nice thought, but completely wrong.

The EU is sovereign over our judiciary and legislature.

I don't wish to debate that on there - search EU and find loads of posts explaining the position.

Funny how Alex Salmond seems to be some sort of a hate figure in England yet remarkably popular in Scotland. Another example of the differences in both nations and why more and more Scots are recognising that we should be an independant nation and not controlled by Westminster which is out of touch with the thinking of most Scots

Morning LochnessI see the analogy of your post above as the one of Margaret Thatcher, who was seen by many as the PM who most gave credibility to the doctrine that community was wrong and that it was alright to look after number one and to keep much more of what you have rather than sharing it too far amongst those who do not have as much. And she, for some time enjoyed considerable support. Of course, as we saw, that support waned and she left Downing Street in tears, totally unable to understand why community does matter.

I am by no means an expert on any of those issues and am sure they will form part of the separation agreement negotiations when Scotland leaves the UK.

Scotland will not be the first nation to leave the union and most, if not all those issues have been already resolved in one way or another either as part of one of the intra nation agreements with other EU nations or more specifically between Ireland and the UK. People pass across the border in both directions between Ireland and Northern Ireland in their thousands every day. Trading in both pounds and Euro's, paying by cash and by credit cards, driving cars and using ATMs. The rules that apply there will apply between England and Scotland I imagine.

There are also agreements that cover across border crime and the juridictions of the various courts where the crimes are committed. There would be very little need to change these agreements other than to extend them between Scotland and England.

There are also arrangements that cover health care and hospitalisation that already exist and appear to work reasonably well that enable medical care to be charged back to the persons own health authority. I would be very surprised if these things will require too much discussion to be able to resolve to the satisfaction of both nations.

My own personal view on Scottish independance is that it is both inevitable and unstoppable. As you know the original intent of Alex Salmon was to offer a devo max option on the ballot paper. It was Mr. Cameron in his arrogance that has forced it into an in/out choice. My guess is he has done that knowing full well that the devo max option would have exposed all the mendacious and deliberate obfuscation of Scotlands true economic position by the Treasury would have been exposed by that option thus leading to an absolute landslide vote for full independance shortly after IMO.

theoldbill,

My use of the EU was to show the rank hypocrasy of the charges and threats being made against Scotland for wanting exactly what the anti EU brigade have been demanding for the whole of the UK ad nausium for decades now.

The Scottish people want autonomy to be able to take decisions that they think are best for Scotland and not have those decisions made for them. The whole EU debate is just yet another example of that. UKIP and the BNP got only around 7% of the vote in Scotland. Why should the Scottish people as a whole be led over the cliff into the economic wilderness just because the English are being led by the nose into voting against their best interests by various dishonest politicians and a dishonest media?.

Being in the EU has been a good for Scotland and on independance Scotland will very likely get it's own EU referendum, something the English are repeatedly denied by Westminster, and be able to make their own decision about membership free from any English hinderance.

You, like many others, keep saying Scotland are better off staying in the union and you, like many others, still seem unable to stipulate exactly what those benefits are for Scotland. May I ask again, just what is in it for the Scottish people to say no to independance?....

Chilicat,

It was only a few years ago that it was revealed that the UK government used MI5 to spy on Mr. Salmond and other members of the SNP.............

The Scottish people want autonomy to be able to take decisions that they think are best for Scotland and not have those decisions made for them

Graffiti, you are posting inaccurately. You do not speak for the whole, or neither the majority of the Scottish People. Even the SNP at the last pariliamentary election didn't succeed in capturing the majority of votes from the electorate.

I speak for no-one but myself Michaelmas, I post my opinions and my personal assessments based on actual voting outcomes and factual data. I do not claim to do otherwise, unlike many in here who regularly claim they represent the majority viewpoint such as the anti EU brigade who do so endlessly despite never having any more than 10% of the electorate actually vote for their position..

The SNP got an overwhelming majority of votes from those who chose to vote in the last Scottish election and did so on a mandate of giving the Scottish people a referendum on independance, so a referendum they will get, in late 2014, when the Tory vandalism of our economy and social structures is at it's worst giving the SNP the best chance of winning.......

There are always far more people voting against the winner in a free election than vote for them. The same argument you make could be made against every single UK government that has ever been elected in the history of our country and probably those of every other democracy in the world too....

The Scottish people want autonomy to be able to take decisions that they think are best for Scotland and not have those decisions made for them. The whole EU debate is just yet another example of that. UKIP and the BNP got only around 7% of the vote in Scotland. Why should the Scottish people as a whole be led over the cliff into the economic wilderness just because the English are being led by the nose into voting against their best interests by various dishonest politicians and a dishonest media?.

Being in the EU has been a good for Scotland and on independance Scotland will very likely get it's own EU referendum, something the English are repeatedly denied by Westminster, and be able to make their own decision about membership free from any English hinderance.

You, like many others, keep saying Scotland are better off staying in the union and you, like many others, still seem unable to stipulate exactly what those benefits are for Scotland. May I ask again, just what is in it for the Scottish people to say no to independance?....

How come you have changed your mind about the EU being good for Scotland. Some time back on another thread you stated that all the EU money was spent in and around London.

Scotland would not be led over the cliff by England. The UK will decide one way or another the relative merits of the EU, as a whole, and Scotland, being part of that UK, will have the same say, as say, Yorkshire. I keep asking you, supposing Yorkshire decided they didn't want the same decision as the rest of the UK about EU membership would you be pushing for them to leave the UK? Or London?

None of your arguments stack up keep trying to single out Scotland as a special case. For 300 years they have been part of a Union and we see them as being part of the Union of the United Kingdom. Within that 300 years we grew rich and prospered as a whole, we stood together through some very bad times, and benefited by being part of a single nation.

I am as much Scottish as many of the Scots, because I have Scottish ancestors going back only a couple of generations, and I do not see Scottish people as being anything other than a region of the United Kingdom with a strong regional history and traditions. That is how we have developed as a whole. They, the Scots, and they, the Tykes, and we, the Londoners, are part of one nation. Or if they do break away, can I put in a claim for my share of the resources around the Scottish coast? Would we have claims coming in from all over the world to where the Scots have emigrated for their share of the spoils. After all, the oil wasn't laid down in the last 50 years!

I see a United Kingdom that has benefited from the United Kingdom being a whole as have the English and the Welsh. We are a great nation, I should not have to make out a case for Scotland remaining in the UK as you keep trying to say. They must make the case for leaving, and only now, in their 300 year history within the Union, it seems they have something onto which they can hang their hat, an oil windfall that they want to keep for themselves, simply because it is found near to them. Oh, and the ego of the First Minister that wants to use the oil windfall as a carrott onto which he might very well get a great deal of support to persue his own ambitions, by appealing to the greed of many of those in Scotland. I trust they will see through this and vote as part of the UK.

Scotland might very well want autonomy to make their own decisions, so do I at times, as do many others, but we see the benefit of being in a community and try to put the community interest over our own sporadic desires.

Once again, using the EU argument is not like for like in the argument concerning independence for any UK region. We are not part of a European Nation, under one government. The EU and our part in it is for either the government of the UK to decide, or the people of the UK, by a referendum. Either way, that is the way we live our lives. And Scotland is part of that decision making process. You cannot and should not be arguing that any one region in the United Kingdom can possibly be justified in not being bound by the decision for the whole. That is what being in a community is all about.

Once again, I do not have to make a case for Scotland to stay in the UK. They must make a case for leaving, and they must be prepared to argue that case, even if they hear some arguments that they would rather not listen to.

The bitterness towards the 'English' is plain to see....as for the English hating Alex Salmond, 90% wouldn't even know who he is,

Just be careful what you wish for, Scotland in the EU would have no power (Proportional representation would mean you had very little say as your small population would mean you had only a few MEP's ), as the Germans and the French have shown with their atempts to tax the UK financial sector, they would do the same with Scotland and its Oil, who would stand by you then? Proportional representation would mean you had very little say.

As for the UK governments obsession with the SE of England......its not streets paved with gold, its capital spending that exceeds the rest of the Uk's ten fold thats the problem/

these figures are from the Scotsman - just another nail in the coffin for scots who think scots get a rough deal from westminster http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/political_row_brews_as_scottish_subsidy_soars_to_record_high_1_1113419

Even with oil revenues that leaves around 4billion in westminster subsidies.

Salmond wanted a devolution plus because he knows scotland cannot support itself without westminster subsidies Cameron has called his bluff. Outside of the argument the common denominator in the banking crisis is Scotland

Royal Bank of SCOTLANDHalifax Bank of SCOTLAND

If Scotland wants independance then let them have it and pay the english back the bail out money - It will exceed oil revenues by a wide margin but I say it again you will be sorry if you get independance

I have changed my mind about nothing theoldbill. The vast majority of EU structural funds are spent in and around London and the Tory heartlands but the EU funds that have been spent in Scotland have given Scotland large numbers of jobs and many other benefits too. Access to these funds would increase for Scotland as an independant nation as would the number of MEPs in the EU parliament thus giving Scotland a much greater say should the Scottish people choose, as I am sure they would, to remain in the EU after independance.

I have not responded to your comments about Yorkshire and London because it is obvious that Scotland is a nation, a country in it's own right, regardless of whether it has been in the UK, the Commonwealth or the EU for 30 years, 300 years or 3,000 years. It is a country and it's people's heritage and history is neither diminished nor subsumed by membership of those unions or of any other. If Yorkshire or London or Cornwall or any other part of the UK wants to secede from the union then that is for them to decide, I have no care one way or the other.

Both countries and regions join and leave unions all the time. Croatia, who have just joined the EU have been members of many different unions in it's time and was a part of Yugoslavia until quite recently. The same is true of most other countries at one time or another and just because Scotland has been in the UK union for 300 years is no reason for it to remain so. Scotland and the Scottish people have to do what is best for Scotland and the Scottish people today.

It is not my intent or desire to persuade you to support or not to support Scottish independance, what you or I want is of no consequence as we are neither of us eligable to vote. However, what those who will be voting should have is access to the facts on which to base their decisions. I have detailed what I believe are some of the many benefits to Scotland in voting for independance, that neither you nor anyone else wants to try to offer any valid reasons for people to vote to remain in the UK is your choice. Those who are eligable to vote will draw their own inferences from that and will hopefully vote accordingly and not based on some ephemeral historical nostalgia.....

matt e,

To date some £260 billion has been put into the UK treasury coffers through NS oil, when compared to the money given to Scotland via the Barnet formula I would suggest that the Scottish people have been more than generous to the rest of the UK since oil was discovered. It is after all Scotlands oil not the UKs...........

Graffiti poet. I still cannot find any evidence to support your premise that the scotland is a net contributor to the UK outside left wing scottish press, however leaving that aside I cannot help but think you are completely deluded to think an independant Scotland would have any more say or influence over the EU than the UK as a wholen does now, which is about none.

In my opinion we would be better off financially without scotland and better off without europe who have done nothing in the intersts of the UK. The EU is controlled by the cabal of france and germany and we would be far better off with the commonwealth. However if the scots are convinced of a divorce then by all means have it on the following terms.

Scotland to re-imberse the UK taxpayers for their disasterous banking systemScotland to accept that their will be no scottish MPs in westminsterNever to ask the remainder of the UK for financial bale outsScotland to receive no UK money via the EUAccept a move to British summer timeAccept border controls as Britain remains outside the schlengen agreementcreate its own currency or adopt the euro

Good luck and god speed because most of us have had enough of scots whining about english oppresssion which has not occurred for 200 years.

I'm surprised you say you cannot find such evidence, I posted for you and others a detailed assessment by Nial Aslen of the General Expenditure and Review Scotland that has been accepted as correct by the UK treasury and other economists including Prof. Andrew Hughes Hallett. Add up the numbers in there and do the maths yourself if you are that curious to know or doubtful of my or their conclusions. Scotland contributes over 10% of the UK tax take with only just over 8% of the population and that is without the revenues from North Sea oil and gas being added which have put and additional £260 billion into the UK coffers in the past, ie Scotland subsidises England not the other way around and has done for a long time.

Your wish list has by and large been addressed recently by Alex Salmond himself, apart from the silly ones that is. Watch this video and he will provide you with the answers you seek......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpKVK6DI7OQ&feature=relmfu

PS. You can have your goalposts back as well when Scotland leaves the union if you like, ha ha ha.....

It would be like mum and dad driving with the kid in the back seat. Dad is England, Mum is Brussells and Scotland is the baby.England gets out to leave Mum in charge while baby in its buggy is moved into the passanger seat.It is hard to even suckle while they are driving.

Scotland should vote how it wants to vote, what it "should" do is irrelevant really

On a personal level though, yeah, the concept of the "uk" has always been flawed. And nowadays the extra bits are more hassle than theyre worth and a financial drain that we could do without

I would redirect north sea oil onto the UK mainland first though and move the DVLA into england then kick wales totally to the curb too

If they want independance and all it entails like having to fund their own embassies etc then they should go for it. It will save a bit of much needed money so the crooked twats at whitehall can claim it in expenses or waste it on pointless quangos no doubt

We could also start by not being so anally retentive about a typo and actually reserving posting for when we have something valid to contribute to the discussion rather than posting just for the sake of posting

Where to start with all that! I'll try to go over various points brought up over the last few pages.

Some people have managed to grasp a fundamental point, that only the residents of Scotland should be voting on the issue. If you choose to leave the country, you give up your voting rights for that country, in most cases. Why should that change? Extend it to expats and you have massive problems...how far back do you go? Do you include ancestors? People with a Mc in their surname? I don't think so. The people of Scotland will decide, and noone else. They're the ones who'll be living there.

People also seem to forget that the SNP are not the only pro-independence party in Scotland. Although a number did not get seats, much the same as a number of unionist parties did not get seats, two did. The Green party got 2 seats, and an independent candidate got a seat. In comparison, the Lib Dems got 5 overall...not much of a difference there!

There have been no solid defenses of the UK as of yet. Much is made that the case for independence will have to be put to Scotland, and it not only has begun, but it will continue. In comparison, Unionists have so far offered nothing but fear and scare-mongering. Talk of how Scotland will collapse, how economic meltdown will occur, how we'll get invaded and conquered by unknown foreign nations, how we'll owe the world everything. Numerous small countries survive, some of them with strong social welfare systems, such as Norway, some are more laissez-faire such as Singapore. The USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Kenya, Jamaica, Hong Kong, Malta...none of them have come crying back to Westminster to get back into the UK. I don't see Croatia or Montonegro begging for a reformed Yugoslavia, and I don't see Estonia, Georgia or Kazakhstan praying for a return of the Soviet Union. Empires crumble, countries go it alone...I'm not sure why people are even surprised anymore when it happens.

In essence, there's the oft-repeated cliche about 'being strong together'. Well, how does being together make us stronger? In what areas are each country weak, that being part of the UK solves?

Scotland financially would do just fine outwith the UK. GERS reports, the official governmental figures, showed that Scotland was in surplus for four of five years going up to 2009/2010. The UK was in surplus as a whole in...none of them. Sounds like the UK is struggling there, not Scotland. 2010/2011 figures were released very recently, and there is a small loss, but with events of the last couple of years, that should be expected. In essence, Scotland is subsidising the UK, not the other way around.

No doubt that brings people onto the RBS bailout, amongst other banks. They quickly forget that the operations in trouble were independent subsidiaries of the RBS Group, registered and set up in London, operating according to English law, in English jurisdiction, and paying tax on profits under English classification. Going by the established norm with banks that if you choose to bail out, you only do it for those in your jurisdiction, Scotland would have been liable for...£1billion of the £40billion it actually cost. Yup, it seems like it wisnae all our fault after all. Those norms, by the way, very evident in that RBS Group operations in the USA, setup and independent there, were bailed out by the USA, and even the Dexia bank group was bailed out proportionally across France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg.

As for the oil...prices rising, and more fields just keep on getting found. At least 40 years at present levels...not too bad. Over 95% in Scottish waters. Not to mention if the boycott of Iranian oil goes ahead, you can bet the price of a barrel will skyrocket!

West Lothian question? If Scotland is independent, we won't be sending MPs to Westminster anymore...problem solved!

Think of the savings Scotland would make as well. No more nuclear weapons to pay for, no more wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, no more membership of NATO, no more subsidising the London Olympics, no more subsidising the high-speed rail line, no more House of Lords and expenses to pay for, no paying for an extra 600 MPs we don't need...we'd be saving billions right away!